10/24/1989 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?'ti' y PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 1989 PAGE S his drive to turn around to get to I-480. He is also concerned about the lights, fence, and swimming pool. Mr. Stogsdill stated that he had mentioned something to rir. Sepic about the possibility of the city or the State requiring right turn only, but they do not intend to do this unless they are` forced to. He again explained that the swimming pool would be further back and screened and lights should not even be visible on Butternut Ridge Road.and f.uther that the proposed wrought iron fence would not extend down Butternut Ridge Road and would only be returned slightly.at the corner. Mr. Thomas advised that any light from this pro- perty would have to be shielded from adjacent properties and further stated that a right turn only would not be acceptable in view of the fact that most residents would be using I-480. Mrs. Davis, another neigh- bor, is very concerned because two thirds of these units are one bedroom; she believed that this will attract a more transien.t type of resident which would not be consistent with their residential neighborhood. She further pointed out that one bedroom condominiums do not sell well. Mr. Stogsdill stated that their market research has shown that this is the demand in the area. Mr. Thomas stated that the Commission could not request the developer to do another market study. It was suggested that one bedroom units would also be suitable to the elderly as well as the younger professional person. B. Gorris moved to forward the Atrium Apart- ment Homes proposed development, located south of I-480 and west of S.R.252 to the Architectural Review Board for their input, specifically asking them .to.pay attention to the proposed building materials and asking their input regarding the landscaping and screening around the perimeter of the complex. We are again requesting that the forester review the plans with the developer and provide this committee with his recommendations. We are requesting that these plans be submitted to both the Safety Department and the Engineering Department for their input. At this point Mr. Gorris,, Assistant Law Director Dubelko, Mr. Franz, and members of the Commission discussed the traffic study and the question of Developers Diversified presenting a master plan.f.or their future development. Mr. Morgan believed that the motion should require the master plan or concept plan from Developers Diversified, Mr. Thomas believed that this plan would only be conjecture, and does not believe that the Commission can rely on a concept. Mr. Gorris pointed out that a developer frequently presents a master plan which can be altered with approval. Assistant G?- LaW Director B^t-P^^°?-==- Dubelko stated that the city should call upbn Developers Diversified to work with the city in order to implement the plan that was approved by the court, r1r. Thomas is concerned about making a definite.proposal con- tingent upon a concept. Mr. Franz agreed that he could present an overall concept plan, but could not give specific information. After more discussion it was suggested that the traffic study that was agreed upon during the court nreceedings could be presented with this phase of the development. Mr. Dubelko stated since this developer stands in the shoes of Developers Diversified who are to bear the cost of this traffic study, it is not unreasonable to require it at this point. Mr. Franz is concerned about presenting the traffic study since it would require judgements about the total number of office space, hotel space, and so forth. Mr: Dubelko advised that this study is to be completed by a traffic consultant who is approved by the city and can present different scenarios; the most dense office use versus the most probable office use; the traffic impact if they develop two hotels, versus if they develop no hotels; a few office buildings versus the maximum number permitted by the decree. They must work within the range.of what'is p.robable, in order to help the Commission